Why every girl on the entire planet has a boyfriend

Please read all of this node before adding a writeup, or before sending me a message about it.

The problem isn't that every girl on the planet has a boyfriend. The problem is that all the girls that we see as desireable are taken.

I am about to start using the word "desirable". I mean this in the genetic sense, as in some people are simply more suitable mates than others. How you define that in the real world is up to you.

Ok lets look at some hard numbers here on why every girl on the entire planet has a boyfriend. We are going to look at 20-24 year olds, because I am twenty four, and all the girls I am interested in fall into that range as well. In the United States 16.2 percent of 20-24 year old males are married. While 27.4 percent of 20-24 year old females are married. Why the skew, you might ask? Well men marry younger women, they always have, and they probably always will. Now lets add another number. In that age range there are 105 men for every 100 women.

Do you have all that so far? Good, lets continue.

Lets take a sample population of 1000 women aged 20-24. Now there will be 1050 men to go along with them, because that is the real life ratio. Now lets get all those pesky marriages out of the way. That leaves us with 736 women and 880 men. Those numbers don't sound too terribly bad, but they still don't look that great for the males.

But, how many of those people already have a boyfriend or girlfriend? This is difficult to determine, but by reading a lot of different surveys I was able to come up with these numbers. Roughly 57 percent of unmarried women, and 53 percent of unmarried men aged 20-24 have a boyfriend/girlfriend. Why the skew, you might ask? Well the older men are still going after the younger ones, just like before.

Stay with me here.

That leaves 316 single women and 414 single males. That is almost a four to three ratio. Now lets start getting perfectly honest about something. People are more likely to choose a mate that they find "desirable" in some way. This isn't your fault, this isn't my fault, but it is just the way it works. Now before you start blabbing about "that shouldn't matter, people should look beyond the surface", let me tell you that I agree with you one hundred percent. But that still doesn't change that fact that the population as a whole selects mates based largely on how "desirable" they are. Actually, they can't help it, its genetic anyway.

We are almost there kids!

Remember that 1000 women we started with? Good. Now remember the 684 of them that are paired off somehow? Now realize that the 684 that are already gone represents a significant number of the "desirable" women. That is what men want, that is what they go after. So we have 316 women left for our 414 men to fight over. Sure, there are still some "desirable" ones in there, there always are. But unfortunately a lot of the most "desirable" women are already taken, while a large percentage of the "undesirable" women remain. But that isn't so terribly bad, after all that still means 75 percent of the men end up with a girl, if you pair everyone off. Right? Wrong! What you actually end up with is 414 men fighting over the one hundred most desirable females. That is of course, assuming you think highly of your fellow males, in real life it usually ends up being worse than that.

So no, not every girl on the entire planet has a boyfriend, but most of the ones you are interested in probably do.

Every girl on this planet does not have a boyfriend. However, it's probably safe to assume that they would all appreciate some respect. If you're having problems meeting single girls, try approaching women as people, rather than as ornaments or sexual conquests. 'Cause, hell, you're probably no Ewan MacGregor, either, and you wouldn't want that minor detail to put you out of the game. You expect to woo her with your wit and charm, right? Suprisingly enough, given the chance, she may well have the ability to display those same characteristics.. if you can get past her sub-par supermodel potential.

The problem is that attractive does not mean the people TV tells you are attractive. It's possibly true that the majority of men are only interested in women who are of normal weight (though I suspect most don't care too much so long as she is within a weight range that doesn't significantly impact her life (e.g., I think if a woman is small enough that she can, say, fit in a movie theatre seat, a good number of men won't have a problem with it)), but let's not pretend that there's only one definition of attractive. My definition of attractive includes people who look like people on TV, people who are overweight, people who are underweight, those who are muscular, those who are scrawny.. A group of girls who are "overweight" and "ugly" (i.e., who you and/or the media find ugly - what does that mean? big noses? no makeup or hairstyling? a giant scar covering her whole face?) are not people who I (and others) would necessarily have no desire to approach. It is so much about the individual, not categories.

Don't assume that a woman who is over an average weight is not approached by men. In my experience as a woman, I was quite curvy.. I weighed about 170 at the lowest (though, to be fair, I was also considerably more muscular than the average woman) and had porn starish proportions, only larger. I wore sexy clothes. I got huge amounts of attention. I dated the alpha individuals. Anyone approaching me with the idea that, as an overweight chick, I would settle for them (and there were a couple..) would be laughed at. The fact is, almost all girls get hit on, often way more than they'd like, fatness or ugliness notwithstanding, but like viterbiSearcher and prole say, they'll likely know someone who's scheming when they meet one and will not settle emotionally.

So why is it unreasonable that sexual attractiveness be the key factor in making decisions about whom to date? Prole suggested that 'a pretty face' is not that important but I think physical attractiveness is far more than that. Due, perhaps, to the influence of the aforementioned mags, physical beauty has had a bad rap in the past while. It has been strongly suggested that people shouldn't be credited simply because they were born beautiful.

But why not?

Physical beauty is captivating. It makes life more vivid. It accesses us primally and honestly. It is art in people. Why should someone who was born with the talent of being smart and witty be considered of more 'substance' than someone born with beauty?

People are great. They come in different shapes, sizes, volumes, densities. But to me it makes complete sense to choose beautiful people as sexual partners. People who are less attractive are great for dinner conversation and intimate fireside chats. But if they are not attractive sexually then why have sex with them?

Of course this is an oversimplification because sex is also about emotional closeness. But surely then, if there is no correlation between sexual attractiveness and intelligence, then they are just as likely to be smart/fun/deviant as anyone else? So "all else being equal" doesn't it make sense to target the most attractive people?